{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission\nJanuary 22, 2014\nItem 4A\nAction\nTransportation Commission Minutes:\nWednesday, October 23, 2013\nCommissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nJesus Vargas (Chair)\nMichele Bellows\nThomas G. Bertken\nSandy Wong\nEric Schatmeier\nGregory Morgado\nMembers Absent:\nChristopher Miley (Vice Chair)\nStaff Present:\nStaff Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nStaff Ta, Assistant Engineer\nStaff Nguyen, Assistant City Manager\nStaff Patel, Transportation Engineer\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nNone.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4A.\nMeeting Minutes - July 24, 2013\nCommissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.\nPage 1 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Bellows moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bertken\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0; 1 abstention.\n5.\nNew Business\n5A. AC Transit Fare Increases\nCommissioner Schatmeier explained that he produced a memo on his recommendations dated\nOctober 14th and discussed the objections raised at the Inter-Agency Liaison Committee (ILC)\nmeeting. He said since the meeting, Staff Payne received a notice from AC Transit staffer\nNathan Landau that transfers for transbay riders would continue. He felt his major objection is\nthe elimination of transfers on the system and the fact that passengers located near the worse\nservice would receive a fare increase and that seems inequitable. He noted that the memo says\nthat service speeds would increase due to the elimination, but to him that does not make sense\nbecause passengers would have to come up with cash each time they board. Moreover, he\nbelieved the change is convenient for the operating department and not for the passengers, and\nthe policy will increase the fare on the least efficient service. Thus, his recommendation is for\nAC Transit to provide every passenger with a 90-minute transfer, similar to MUNI, as proof of\npayment.\nCommissioner Bellows said she commended Commissioner Schatmeier's research and she\nagreed with his recommendations.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nCommissioner Bertken said he rode MUNI three times a week and he felt their program was\ngood. Furthermore, he liked the implementation of the transfer policy onto the Clipper card and\ntheir ability to provide paper transfers.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said AC Transit provided examples of other transit agencies\nimplementing a similar transit policy, but the policy still represents a trend for favoring the\noperating department rather than the customers' needs.\nCommissioner Vargas asked AC Transit staff about the time savings once the transfer policy is\neliminated.\nRobert del Rosario, AC Transit Director of Service Development, replied that staff analyzed the\nboarding times and cash paying passengers took eight seconds, Clipper passengers took four\nseconds and simply walking on board took three seconds. Thus, he said the transfer would be\naround the four seconds range. So, he said elimination of paying cash is the key.\nCommissioner Bertken said he was somewhat familiar with MUNI's system since he has been\nusing it for some time and the biggest delay is inserting cash into the farebox. However, he felt\nthe operators could easily generate a transfer pass within seconds.\nPage 2 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 3, "text": "Robert del Rosario said AC Transit use to have paper transfers back in the 1990s and they\nchanged over in early 2000 when new fareboxes were installed. Overall, he said the paper\ntransfers were surrounded by fraud and it was hard to determine the transfer's time limit rip.\nBasically, the agency wanted to move away from the paper transfers, so they converted to\nmagnetic strip transfers and passengers had to dump the pass into the farebox. This procedure\ntook anywhere between four to eight seconds per passenger.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied the SFMTA inspectors enforce the proof of payment system\non MUNI more than the drivers. He explained the proof of payment policy speeds up the\nprocess, but AC Transit may not be ready to implement such a process.\nCommissioner Vargas requested a motion from the Commission.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to insert the recommendations from his October 14, 2013\nmemo and asked AC Transit for clarification on the transbay transfer policy. Commissioner\nBertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked Staff Nguyen if there is an appropriate way to communicate the\nCommission's motion to AC Transit.\nStaff Nguyen replied for the record staff would give the motion to AC Transit directly.\n5B. AC Transit Line 51\nDavid Fyfe, URS Consulting Engineer for AC Transit, presented the report.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nVincent Wu, engineer and Alameda resident, said he resides on the corner of Santa Clara Avenue\nand Caroline Street, and he opposed the relocation of the bus stop from the southwest corner to\nthe southeast corner. He said years ago, the owner of 1000 Santa Clara Avenue repaired the\nstorefront because the store was damaged by a car. He felt the relocation is dangerous because\nof the setback from the curb.\nJohn Brennan spoke on behalf of Christ Episcopal Church. They are supportive of the overall\nplan, but do not support the stop relocation in front of the church on Santa Clara Avenue at\nGrand Street. He explained that there is a lot of pedestrian and vehicular activity in front of the\nchurch. Additionally, there is handicap access to the church to accommodate services, weddings\nand funerals. They proposed a number of alternatives such as moving the stop in front of the\ndentist office at Union Street or leave it where it is.\nSheri Stock said she wanted to make additional comments to John Brennan's comments. She\nsaid there are many studies on this transit line, but when she sat on the church steps and watched\nthe traffic flow go by she found not much of a savings of time. She saw the bus stop after\nloading passengers on numerous occasions. Also, she noticed that while the bus would be in\nfront of the church, motorists could not easily make a free right turn and that would lead to\ntraffic congestion.\nPage 3 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 4, "text": "Harry Reppert, parishioner of Christ Church, said there is a 60 foot white zone in front of the\nchurch for easy drop off of passengers. He mentioned that the church's activities would be\nimpacted if the drop off zone is eliminated.\nCommissioner Vargas asked where the location of the drop off zone was specifically located.\nHarry Reppert replied that the loading zone is on the Santa Clara Avenue side and right in front\nof the church.\nDennis Yee, parishioner of Christ Church, said he opposed the bus stop relocation on Santa Clara\nAvenue at Grand Street because the church hosts many activities and a large number of youth\nand elderly visit the church. The church has a small parking lot and only one handicap space.\nThe drop off curb area serves as the handicap space. Furthermore, the church conducts many\nweddings and funerals and the majority of the events come from non-members of the church. He\nalso said the relocation would displace motorists who would have to park further down the street.\nEvery Tuesday, the church serves a food pantry for over 100 clients, which is the same morning\nfor street cleaning on Grand Street.\nGenevieve Monterrosa, resident of 1716 Santa Clara Avenue, said she lives two doors down\nfrom Christ Church and opposed the bus stop relocation primarily because of parking. There are\nonly three residences on the block, so parking is already challenging. Having two bus stops on\nthe same block would cause cars to go around both buses and increase the risk of accidents. AC\nTransit wants to be consistent of the running times, but the running time only changes by less\nthan one minute. The areas that are more challenged are in Oakland and Berkeley and this stop\nis not in the top 20 locations listed in the relocation list. She read a letter from her neighbor,\nLaurie Harper, who said that she does not want the bus stop moved because it would place a\nstop in front of the church and there is no evidence supporting the need for the change.\nUltimately, congestion and noise would be generated from the relocation.\nPam Cowart, parishioner of Christ Church, said she opposed the relocation of the bus stop.\nNorbert Scheunemann, parishioner of Christ Church, said he opposed the relocation of the bus\nstop. He said the Girls Inc. facility next to Christ Church have a lot of youth activity that\nincreases potential accidents. He noted that service delays are related to Oakland and Berkeley\nand will not save time in Alameda. Additionally, he asked the Commission to review the activity\nnext time they drive by the church because there is a lich gate that is an integral part of the\nAnglican tradition and the relocation would obstruct its use.\nMaria Phraner, resides across from Christ Church, and agreed with the parishioners and\nconstantly observed traffic and pedestrian activities. She felt the relocation would hinder the\nactivity because there would be two bus stops across from each other and that would increase\ncongestion, noise and pollution.\nMichael Cordell, resident of Santa Clara Avenue and Willow Street, said he opposed the bus\nstop relocation because the stop would be directly in front of his house. He stated there is\nalready a parking problem on the block and the relocation could cause potential accidents from\nPage 4 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 5, "text": "children attending Henry Haight Elementary School and Little Seeds Children's Center. He\nexplained that two stops would be on the same block (Santa Clara Avenue/Chestnut Street and\nSanta Clara Avenue/Willow Street). He felt AC Transit and the City will compound traffic\ncongestion rather than negate the issue.\nDavid Baker, resident near Caroline Street and Santa Clara Avenue, wanted to focus on the delay\nissue and the bus lane extension specifically within the Santa Clara Avenue corridor. He\nsuggested staff think outside the box and study a bus only lane in two directions on Lincoln\nAvenue to reduce the load on Santa Clara Avenue.\nFrank D. Valenzuela, owner of Dan Francisco Salon, opposed the bus relocation because his\npatrons can access his salon easily, but the relocation would displace them. He explained that\nloading and unloading passengers in front of the entrance door with a 15-foot setback from the\ncurb would affect the privacy of the 27-units surrounding the stop. Additionally, the placement\nof the bus stop in front of the salon would be far less safe than the current location and there is a\nutility post at the corner of the relocated stop, so if a bus hits the post it would be disastrous.\nLance Russum said he is familiar with the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline\nStreet. He worked near there for over 47 years and witnessed accidents and near accidents.\nThere is no reason why the bus should be moved to the southeastern side. He believed the\nrelocation would create more congestion and blockage. He also suggested eliminating the stop\non Santa Clara Avenue at Everett Street.\nCarolyn Pounds, resident near Eighth Street and Santa Clara Avenue, said she opposed the bus\nstop relocation near her area. She mentioned that Eighth Street and Santa Clara Avenue is a busy\nintersection and she does not see the benefit from the relocation.\nLesley V. Gustafson said she opposed the relocation near Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline\nStreet, and felt it would be unsafe for the businesses and the 27-unit residents. Furthermore,\nparking would be impacted by the relocation.\nDan Thuzon, resident of 1645 Broadway and an engineer, opposed the bus stop relocation onto\nBroadway and Buena Vista Avenue. He said working as an engineer he must produce the\nfollowing outcomes: 1. faster; 2. cheaper; and 3. better. He believed that moving the stop does\nnot address those issues. He noted that there are three houses on the corner that do not have off-\nstreet parking and street cleaning further displaces cars. He mentioned that Edison School (2700\nBuena Vista Avenue) is a block away and the children cross the intersection in the early morning\nand afternoon. The bus would impact the visibility of motorists and cause pedestrian accidents.\nHe also carried a letter from his neighbor, Karen Pierce, at 1647 Broadway Avenue. His\nneighbor is a bed ridden senior, and wrote the noise and smoke would disrupt her health, remove\nparking for her caretaker and decrease her property value.\nLetty Soogian explained that moving the Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline Street bus stop would\nbe detrimental for residents and business owners. She pointed out that parking is already limited\nand that would further hurt senior residents and visitors in the area. She said now is not the time\nto threaten businesses and employees' incomes.\nPage 5 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 6, "text": "Leanne Corrie, patron of Dan Francisco Salon, opposed moving the bus stop at Santa Clara\nAvenue and Caroline Street. She said there has always been an issue with parking and traffic\nand crossing Santa Clara Avenue is already dangerous. She recommended installing a cross\nwalk at the intersection.\nMike Tuttle, resident of 787 Santa Clara Avenue, opposed the relocation at Eighth Street and\nSanta Clara Avenue because the stop is close to his house and it would create additional traffic\nand noise. He said, in the past, he called the police several times to have a person removed\nbecause she was screaming at the top of her lungs while waiting for the bus and that goes on all\nthe time. He suggested moving the stops to Santa Clara Avenue at Ninth Street where the\ntransbay bus stop and 5-6 businesses are located. He had additional concerns with the relocation\nduring the 8 am and 5 pm peak hour because children are picked up and dropped off. The result\ncreates double parking at the elementary school, so that is why they need a consolidated bus stop\nto open up parking spaces and a loading zone. He mentioned that Officer Jones is at the\nintersection every weekday since the beginning of September to issue parking citations.\nPedro Marquez said he opposed the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline Street\nbecause he does not find anything wrong with the existing stop.\nMatt Valenzuela, employee of Dan Francisco Salon, said he opposed the Santa Clara Avenue and\nCaroline Street stop relocation. He recognized the issue of buses stopping within proximity to\nthe salon's windows. Additionally, he felt the fumes would enter the salon, which would be\ndetrimental for the patrons. He added that patrons do not have an area to wait if the stop is\nrelocated and the new stop may bring loiterers. Furthermore, the relocated bus stop is near a\ndriveway that is frequently used and when that driveway is being used, it would be an issue of\nvisibility to the street.\nJane Sullwold said Frank Valenzuela came to her and asked for her helped. She referred to AC\nTransit's letter dated June 25, which noted the delays at Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline Street.\nShe received the study from Fehr Peers and found no delays in that area. She said public\ncomments sent to AC Transit were never published to the Commission. She brought copies of\nthe letter submitted by her and Mr. Valenzuela. She also mentioned that Mr. Valenzuela\ncollected over 100 signatures of people opposed to the bus stop relocation. She said AC\nTransit's initial goal was to reduce service delays, but at the community workshop many have\nsaid that there are no delays. Now, AC Transit has shifted its goal to resolving the safety issue.\nReverend Stephen McHale, Christ Church, said his primary role is to make the space open and\nwelcoming to the community. He felt the relocation would limit access to the front of the church\nand that would deter visitors attempting to come to a number of events that are hosted by the\nchurch. He mentioned the delicate lich gate has architectural significance and the relocation\nwould make the gate a defacto bus stop. Moreover, he has seen an uptick of theft in the church\nand he does not want trash increased near the church.\nBryan Sperry, Oakland resident, felt that moving the bus stop at the front of Christ Church would\nnot help increase service speeds. He would like the relocations focused in Oakland. He believed\nthe lich gate at Christ Church would be subject to graffiti and the City would eventually request\nthe gate be removed because of safety reasons.\nPage 6 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 7, "text": "relocating the bus stop based on safety reasons. She pointed out that Alameda High School is\nclose to the intersection, so possibly eliminating the stop at Santa Clara Avenue and Willow\nStreet would increase service time.\nEleanor Wiley, resident of 1402 Santa Clara Avenue, said she opposed all bus stops relocating\nand felt Alameda is being painted with the same brush as Berkeley and Oakland.\nAlex Helperin, resident of 1705 Broadway, said he opposed the Broadway and Buena Vista\nAvenue relocation and the existing stop has a large setback and less parking issues.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said at the July 9\nmeeting a lot of people commented about the wrong type of people are being attracted to bus\nstops. He lives three blocks from the Santa Clara Avenue corridor and said not everyone who\nrides the bus is homeless or starting trouble. That night he rode his bike down Santa Clara\nAvenue and he never worried about AC Transit buses hitting him. They are the safest drivers on\nthe street. However, he felt motorists tend to cause pedestrian accidents overall. He also pointed\nout that buses do not stop at the Dan Francisco Salon for more than 15 seconds and they are\ngone. Yet, he did hear legitimate transit-related conflicts such as the Broadway and Buena Vista\nAvenue stop and he hoped they could fix the service between downtown and Fruitvale BART\nStation. Overall, he approved of the incremental stop changes because every second is essential.\nLouie Martirez, Line 51A passenger, said he is in favor of moving the bus stop to Ninth Street\nand Santa Clara Avenue because of the current location's safety issues.\nPage 7 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 8, "text": "Alan Pryor, resident of 1009 Santa Clara Avenue, said that moving the stop in front of Dan\nFrancisco Salon would be detrimental and he felt Christ Church made valid points about not\nhaving the stop close to their location.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, said the Santa Clara Avenue section\nbetween Everett Street and Broadway does not need a stop at Everett Street because Park Street\nand Broadway are good enough as they are. He felt the relocation stop at Buena Vista Avenue\nand Broadway did not make sense. In addition, he wanted to see Broadway and Santa Clara\nAvenue kept as a stop and the City should paint the stop SO it is clearly marked as a bus stop.\nCynthia Landry said she travels on the bus down at Webster Street to downtown Oakland for\nwork. She is not clear of all the existing issues, but the bus worked fine for her. She felt\neverything should stay as it is.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said the Everett Street and Santa Clara Avenue speakers mentioned\nthere is one stop on Everett and not on the westbound side. He felt that is a prime candidate for\nelimination.\nSean Diest Lorgion, AC Transit Senior Transportation Planner, said a few years ago they did\nremove the westbound stop, but the current spacing in the eastbound direction between Park\nStreet and Santa Clara Avenue at Broadway is roughly 1,600 feet. He noted that AC Transit has\nan 800-1,300 foot spacing guideline and they would like to keep the policy with regards to\nEverett Street.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked AC Transit staff if the parking spaces in front of Dan Francisco\nSalon are designated for disabled people.\nDavid Fyfe replied the parking spaces are not disabled spaces.\nCommissioner Schatmeier wondered why the Ninth Street and Santa Clara Avenue bus stop was\nnot shown in the presentation map.\nSean Diest Lorgion replied that the current bus stop on Ninth Street and Santa Clara Avenue is\nused for the Transbay Line O only and the Line 51 stops at Eighth Street and Santa Clara\nAvenue.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked AC Transit staff if they examined consolidating the lines.\nSean Diest Lorgion replied that staff discussed the option and they are willing to consolidate\nboth lines onto Eighth Street and Santa Clara Avenue. They chose Eighth Street and Santa Clara\nAvenue because the intersection is signalized and Ninth Street and Santa Clara Avenue has an\nuncontrolled intersection.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said there are safety conflicts between traffic and pedestrians,\nespecially when buses pick up at the near side and far side of an intersection.\nRobert del Rosario replied that a stop sign controlled intersection if on the far side had to stop at\nPage 8 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 9, "text": "the sign and then pull into the stop. However, the near side is substandard because the bus often\ndoes not have enough space and must pull into the stop at an angle. The far side approach takes\nup less parking and allows the bus to go through the intersection and pull into the stop.\nCommissioner Wong referred to the Santa Clara Avenue and Morton Street bus stop proposal.\nShe noticed that moving the stop on the far side would create conflict with an existing fire\nhydrant shown in the staff presentation on page 18. She is wondering about the impact of it.\nDavid Fyfe replied that the fire hydrant would be moved.\nRobert del Rosario said they would not want the bus to dwell near a hydrant for long periods, but\nthe driver could move out of the way if there was an emergency.\nCommissioner Wong replied SO there is not a code or regulation of distance for placing a bus stop\nnear a fire hydrant.\nRobert del Rosario said not for a bus stop.\nWilliam Buller, AC Transit Traffic Engineer, said the back end of the bus would be 10 feet away\nfrom the ramp and the hydrant.\nCommissioner Wong asked staff for the approximate distance needed between bus stops.\nWilliam Buller replied 800 to 1,300 feet.\nCommissioner Wong referred to the Santa Clara Avenue and Eighth Street bus stop, and she\nwanted to know the location of the Ninth Street and Santa Clara Avenue stop.\nRobert del Rosario replied that the Ninth Street stop is on the west side near the corner store.\nCommissioner Wong said since it is in front of the corner store, which is the same distance as\nMaya Lin School, then there are two bus stops on each corner even if the stops are not used by\nthe same bus route.\nRobert del Rosario replied the bus stops have different routes that pick up and drop off and the\npolicy of distance is based on the same route.\nCommissioner Wong said when consolidating the stops down to Ninth Street and Santa Clara\nAvenue and then Webster Street and Santa Clara Avenue there would be two bus stops on the\nsame block by Maya Lin School and another by the corner store.\nRobert del Rosario replied they would consider removing the Ninth Street bus stop and the stop\nsign per route policy. However, the point of the policy is to have access to a line for all\npassengers and not the fact that there are two bus stops on one block. Otherwise, their\npassengers have to walk further to access the service.\nCommissioner Morgado asked staff if they contacted the Alameda Police Department when\nPage 9 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 10, "text": "conducting the report. The reason he asked was that he had Sergeant Simmons attend the\nmeeting to comment about general crime around bus stops within the Santa Clara Avenue\ncorridor.\nSergeant Simmons, Alameda Police Department Traffic Division, said over his 23-year history\nhe has seen graffiti, loitering and occasional theft of cell phones or personal property at bus\nstops.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons about accident data along Santa Clara Avenue.\nHe specifically wanted to know about the number of speeding buses and parking or drop off\nconcerns.\nSergeant Simmons replied that the drop off at Eighth Street and Santa Clara Avenue concerned\nhim because the stop is right in front of the library. He said if the relocation were to happen, the\nCity would lose around seven parking spaces on that block. Moreover, the area near Maya Lin\nSchool is one of the worst areas for picking and dropping off passengers and many motorists\ndouble park or encroach in the bicycle lanes. Regarding speeding buses, he routinely receives\ncalls about this issue, and he is armed with a radar gun to check AC Transit buses, but he does\nnot see many speeding buses. He stated that he does not have all of the accident data for Santa\nClara Avenue, but he recalled the last collision was at Grand Street and Santa Clara Avenue\ninvolving a motorist running a red light and hitting a car.\nCommissioner Bellows told Sergeant Simmons that every time she drove near Eighth Street and\nSanta Clara Avenue it is impacted in all directions. She avoids the area because it is such a\ntough intersection. Also, she wanted to know his opinion about relocating the bus stop from\nEighth Street to Ninth Street.\nSergeant Simmons said he was concerned with the Ninth Street and Santa Clara Avenue\nintersection because the heaviest crossings involve Maya Lin students. Additionally, he said that\nthey deploy a crossing guard at the intersection, adding extra activity would hinder the children's\nsafety.\nCommissioner Morgado asked Sergeant Simmons if lighting was an important element to\nstopping crime.\nSergeant Simmons replied lighting is an important factor to reducing crime. Yet, he does not\nknow if he could make a fair assessment about the lighting at the bus stops along Santa Clara\nAvenue because he has not worked night shifts in a long time. However, he would ask the night\ntime officers and come back to the Commission with an answer.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said it would be good to know how the proposed moves would be\nimpacted by the presence or absence of lighting.\nCommissioner Bertken asked AC Transit staff for clarification of the route 51A when discussing\nservice delays in the staff presentation.\nRobert del Rosario replied the 51A line runs through Fruitvale BART Station and into\nPage 10 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 11, "text": "Broadway, through Santa Clara Avenue and up Webster Street. The bus goes into downtown\nOakland and up Broadway in Oakland and terminates at the Rockridge BART Station.\nCommissioner Bertken said the staff presentation displayed a one-way savings of 17 minutes.\nHe questioned the amount of delay within the Webster Street and Broadway section.\nWilliam Buller replied there would be 3-5 minutes time savings through Webster Street, Santa\nClara Avenue, Broadway and back.\nCommissioner Bertken asked if AC Transit has kept records on accidents around the bus stops\nand pedestrian crosswalks.\nRobert del Rosario replied AC Transit has the data, but he does not have it currently. He went\non to say there were some significant incidents that have occurred such as the case at Frick\nMiddle School in Oakland along Foothill Boulevard. He pointed out that AC Transit does not\nwant pedestrian incidents to occur because the liability to them and their customer base is huge.\nCommissioner Bertken said a number of public speakers presented their input this evening. He\nwanted to know how AC Transit staff incorporated community input.\nRobert del Rosario replied that the safety issues that were mentioned are taken very seriously. In\naddition, AC Transit has the County sheriff officers who work with the agency to address the\nsafety issues and the agency worked with the police department to coordinate ways to make bus\nstops safe. He noted that there are opportunities for grants to incorporate more lighting and other\nenhancements around bus stops.\nCommissioner Bertken asked AC Transit staff if they made any changes since the first proposal\nbased on community input.\nRobert del Rosario replied that three months ago they had a community meeting that was well\nattended and based on that they went back and conducted field work to see if there were parking\nissues and ways to mitigate those issues along Santa Clara Avenue. Staff then came up with two\ntiered recommendations. The priority recommendations were for bus stop locations that are\nlabeled tier 1 for the agency and City staff agreed. The second tier is high priority, but they have\nsome discretion to postpone the implementation.\nCommissioner Bertken asked about the basic locations and the changes that are not associated\nwith a traffic signal.\nRobert del Rosario said he does not have the exact details, but they could pull up the list. He\nemphasized the safety benefits from near side to far side at uncontrolled intersections.\nCommissioner Bellows wondered why several locations are moving from near side to far side,\nbut others are not.\nRobert del Rosario replied he would have his team talk more about that because obstacles such\nas traffic signal cabinets and driveways prevent the agency from moving the bus stops.\nPage 11 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 12, "text": "Sean Diest Lorgion explained that there are a couple of locations where they would like to move\nthe bus stops, but sometimes there are multiple driveways that would not allow them to install a\nbus stop and they do not want to move a stop midblock.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff if they would consider a controlled intersection a stop sign or\nonly a stoplight.\nWilliam Buller replied when the side street is stopped that is a semi-controlled intersection.\nHowever, when all directions are stopped that is an all way controlled intersection. The reason\nthey call the intersection controlled and uncontrolled is that they are focusing on the main route.\nCommissioner Wong said she understood the benefits of locating the bus stops, but she wanted\nclarification on whether the agency's goal for moving the locations was for safety or time\nsavings.\nRobert del Rosario replied the goal is for both safety and time savings. However, the far side has\nan accessibility advantage, so there would be some time saving and safety in all situations.\nDavid Fyfe explained that the far side bus stop could also minimize parking removal. He\nexplained that a bus could easily pull over to the far side bus stop and maneuver through the\nintersection, but the near side bus stop would eliminate more parking spaces.\nCommissioner Wong replied that it is a 2.5-minute savings total.\nDavid Fyfe said the time savings preliminary estimate is 3 minutes in Alameda in each direction.\nCommissioner Wong referred to the bus location on Santa Clara Avenue in front of the library.\nShe felt moving the stop in front of Maya Lin School could pose potential problems like loitering\nand graffiti. Moreover, there is a school gate nearby the bus stop and that is a safety issue.\nCommissioner Schatmeier wondered if there were available funds to upgrade the relocated bus\nstops with shelters, benches or lighting.\nRobert del Rosario replied that the primary purpose of the project was to increase speed and\nreliability and that is what the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) approved and\nfunded. Alternatively, staff could look into small spot treatments and the agency recently\napplied for a Safe Routes to Transit Grant with Alameda.\nWilliam Buller replied that they are also tasked with being accessible and some amenities could\nfall under the heading of accessibility, especially under ADA.\nCommissioner Schatmeier was concerned that the amenities at the existing bus stops would not\nbe available at the relocated stops.\nSean Diest Lorgion explained that as part of the project if there was an existing shelter or bench\nit would be relocated.\nPage 12 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 13, "text": "Commissioner Wong asked AC Transit staff if the preferred relocation recommendations were\na\npackage deal or could the Commission approve them separately.\nDavid Fyfe said it is not a package deal.\nCommissioner Wong explained that she found value of relocating some of the bus stops but for\nthe others she did not see intended service or safety improvements.\nRobert del Rosario explained that the relocation's objective is to improve the time savings to\nload the passenger quickly.\nCommissioner Vargas asked AC Transit staff how they addressed bus stop relocations around\nschools in other cities that they serve.\nWilliam Buller said they work with the schools and attempt to find a solution either by shifting\nthe bus stop or working around established equipment that impedes on relocating the stop.\nUltimately, they work around the obstacles to find a solution.\nCommission Bellows would like to make separate motions.\nCommissioner Schatmeier felt the Commission would review the first and second tiers. There\nshould be discussion on prioritizing the locations for the second tier.\nCommission Vargas requested clarification on whether the first tier was priority deployment and\nthe second tier would need further discussion.\nDavid Fyfe said staff evaluated the technical basis for operational benefits and safety concerns.\nThe first tier does not have a traffic signal and the second tier is all traffic signal controlled.\nThus, all locations give operational benefits, but the first tier is not traffic signal controlled.\nCommission Vargas asked AC Transit staff if they were looking for a package approval to move\nthe project along quickly.\nStaff Payne directed the Commission to pages 26-27 of the staff report. The pages illustrate all\nthe items needed for approval.\nCommissioner Vargas called for a motion\nCommissioner Bertken moved to endorse the five items found on page 26 of the staff report.\nCommissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\nCommissioner Bellows made a motion to approve the intersection relocations separately.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to approve the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Mozart\nStreet. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\nPage 13 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 14, "text": "Commissioner Bellows moved to deny the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline Street.\nCommissioner Wong seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to approve the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Morton\nStreet. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4:2.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to approve the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Chestnut\nStreet. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:1.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to approve the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Willow\nStreet. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to approve the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Walnut\nStreet. Commissioner Wong seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to require further analysis on Santa Clara Avenue and Everett\nStreet. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to approve the relocation at Buena Vista and Webster Street.\nCommissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to deny the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Eighth Street.\nCommissioner Wong seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to deny the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Grand Street.\nCommissioner Wong seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to deny the relocation at Broadway, Tilden Way, and Eagle\nAvenue. Commissioner Wong seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:1.\nCommissioner Bertken asked City staff what would be the consequence of the action taken by\nthe Commission.\nStaff Nguyen replied that they need to hear from AC Transit staff because they have a 24 month\ntime horizon and that would frame how they go forward.\nDavid Fyfe said that they were conducting public outreach until December 2013, and the design\nconsultant will continue to work with the community. They expected the design process to\nconclude by the end of the year and they would start construction by early 2014.\nCommissioner Bertken asked if they would review the bus stops that were of concern to the\ncommunity and the Commission.\nPage 14 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 15, "text": "Robert del Rosario replied that the relocation stops that were of concern would be put on hold\nuntil further analysis.\nDavid Fyfe said all votes for no's would be dropped out of the proposal.\nStaff Nguyen replied that the Commission took the vote and anyone who disagreed with the\ndecision could appeal to the City Council within ten days. He also mentioned that there is a fee\nto file an appeal.\nRobert del Rosario replied staff would continue moving forward with the bus stops that are\napproved because of the deadline set by MTC.\nCommissioner Wong asked for clarification on the final motion for Santa Clara Avenue and\nCaroline Street.\nCommissioner Vargas called for the Commission to make another motion for Santa Clara\nAvenue and Caroline Street.\nCommissioner Wong moved to keep the bus stop at Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline Street.\nCommissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\nMichael Cordell asked the Commission for a re-vote on the Santa Clara and Willow Street\nrelocation because the new location contains a fire hydrant, school and daycare center. He also\nasked about the appeals process.\nStaff Payne replied that an appeal could be submitted with the City Council within ten days.\n5C. San Jose Avenue at Regent Street All-Way Stop Appeal - Report\nStaff Ta presented the report.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nNeil Heyden, resident of 2500 San Jose Avenue, said he was glad the issue was being addressed.\nHe has experienced five accidents in the last couple of years at the corner and constant honking\nhorns. He pointed out that motorists traveling along Regent Street do not realize that the other\nmotorists do not have a stop sign. Thus, the proposal will not address the issue. Additionally, he\nfelt the height of the parked cars comes into question because the signage may not be visible to\noncoming traffic. He proposed Regent Street to include a sign that says \"Cross Traffic Does Not\nStop.\" He explained that congestion and speed around San Jose Avenue is high in the morning\nand around 100 cars pass around the area during the peak hours.\nMary Claire Neumann, resident of 2504 San Jose Avenue, composed the letter for the appeal.\nShe said everyone in the neighborhood was concerned about this issue. She stated that every\nother day she hears shrieking tires and honking horns, and she does not understand why an all-\nway stop sign would not resolve the issue. Moreover, she noted that parking may be available at\n1:30 pm, but not at 5 pm and on. Usually, she has to park three blocks away from her house and\nPage 15 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 16, "text": "it is getting worse. However, she was okay with losing one parking space in exchange for more\nvisibility.\nJon Spangler said that since 2002 he was concerned that Alameda does not measure up to the\nCaltrans' recommendation to paint one parking space red at all intersection corners for visibility.\nHis experience living over in the Gold Coast entails terrible sight lines at St. Charles or Ninth\nStreet as he bikes or drives along Central Avenue.\nCommissioner Wong asked staff if \"Cross Traffic Does Not Stop\" signs warrant or meet the\nstandard of the signage installed.\nStaff Ta replied that the \"Cross Traffic Does Not Stop\" sign is typically placed where stop signs\nare new or orientation has been changed. However, they could put them in if the Commission\nrequested.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Sergeant Simmons if it is possible to get more surveillance within\nthat area.\nSergeant Simmons replied yes it is and he was going to pass his business card to offer a\nNeighborhood Speed Watch program. The program arms community members with radar guns\nand helps them to accurately gauge the speed of the vehicles.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff what are the fiscal implications of moving the\nrecommendations forward.\nStaff Ta replied that there are none. The review is part of the traffic operations program, and are\nprogrammed under the maintenance budget.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to amend the recommendation to include the City actively\nsolicit the Neighborhood Speed Watch program.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to also include \"Cross Traffic Does Not Stop\" signs in both\ndirections.\nSergeant Simmons replied that the program is only as effective as the participation of the\nvolunteers. So, if they find that there is no participation then there is not much they can do about\nit.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons about enforcement of the signage height.\nSergeant Simmons replied that he arms his parking technicians with every tool that they need to\nenforce the signs and the technicians have tape measures to measure the height of vehicles.\nCommissioner Vargas requested a motion from the Commission to approve the staff\nrecommendations with two amendments to actively solicit residents to participate in the\nNeighborhood Speed Watch program and to add \"Cross Traffic Does Not Stop\" signs in both\ndirections. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.\nPage 16 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 17, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the neighborhood appealed the decision would it come\nback to the Commission for consideration.\nCommissioner Vargas replied that the appeal would go to the City Council.\n5D. Planned Construction of Class I Bike Path on Ron Cowan Parkway\nHugh Johnson, Port of Oakland Project Manager, presented the report.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if the project is a Class II bicycle lane and ultimately if it would be\na Class I path.\nHugh Johnson replied that they are building a Class I path, and it currently has a side of road\nbike lane from Harbor Bay Parkway to Air Cargo Road. Currently, there is a Class I path from\nAir Cargo Road to Airport Drive.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if this would be a gap closure.\nHugh Johnson replied yes.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if the letter received from Bike Walk Alameda made it to the Port\nof Oakland.\nHugh Johnson replied yes.\nStaff Payne replied that the two organizations had a nice exchange and after the exchange they\nreceived the letter.\nCommissioner Vargas requested a motion from the Commission.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.\n5E. Estuary Crossing Shuttle Proposed Route Change\nStaff Payne presented the report.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said he liked the idea in principal, he but wondered how the shuttle\nwould proceed if an AC Transit line #51 needed to pull in when the bus stop was occupied.\nStaff Payne replied that it is a long stop and fits multiple buses. So, depending on where the AC\nTransit bus is at the time, the shuttle could go before the bus or after it.\nCommissioner Vargas requested a motion from the Commission.\nPage 17 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 18, "text": "Commissioner Bellows moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Bertken seconded\nthe motion. The motion was approved 6:0.\nStaff Nguyen explained that there were comments opposing staff recommendations and the\ncomments are included in the staff report. Additionally, he said staff made an effort to reach out\nto the College of Alameda who opposed the change, but were unsuccessful in doing SO. He went\non to say that a faculty member at College of Alameda proposed a different route to maintain the\nstop in front of the college. He mentioned that there would be an Estuary Crossing Shuttle Task\nForce meeting the next day and a representative from the college would be there.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if the time-related issue occurred because of the service area's size.\nShe asked about the distance between the shuttle stops.\nStaff Nguyen replied that the service had to meet the standard of the grants. So, there is a 30\nminute loop requirement and people were complaining about the fact that we are taking the\ncollege stop away rather than the Wind River stop. However, Wind River pays into the service\nand the new objective is to eventually create a second shuttle.\nCommissioner Schatmeier pointed out this is a special purpose shuttle and the service is designed\nto serve specific clientele at specific stops.\nCommissioner Vargas said the conclusion would be to eventually discuss establishing dialogue\nwith the college and possible funding for a second shuttle to accommodate students.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6A.\nTransit Line 631 Changes\n- Changed to meet the Academy schedule.\n6B.\nBART Service to Alameda Request\n- The mayor sent a letter to consider BART service within the City.\n6C.\nBicycle Rack Voucher Project - Call for Projects\n- Staff will submit a bike parking grant and staff solicited suggestions from the\nCommission on bike rack locations.\n6D.\nPotential Future Agenda Items\n- Park Street Pedestrian Safety Project\n- Jean Sweeney Open Space - Preliminary Conceptual Layout\n- Transportation Priority List Update\n- Quarterly Report\n- Alameda Point Draft TDM Plan\nCommissioner Schatmeier pointed out that last month he requested a discussion on the City's\nferry service, and he would like the item placed on the agenda.\nJon Spangler explained that the next day at 9 am BART Board would vote on staff\nrecommendations under item 5a to make bikes on board a permanent policy.\nPage 18 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-10-23", "page": 19, "text": "Commissioner Wong asked about the supplementary bus service at the Academy of Alameda,\nand wondered if the schedule for the #631 line presented pick up and arrival times.\nStaff Payne said the bus would leave Encinal High School at 3:30 pm, and would then leave the\nAcademy at 3:35 pm.\n7.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nJim Strehlow spoke about the traffic light at Webster Street and Pacific Avenue, and over a year\nago he asked how this signal is going to be timed for Webster Street. Staff replied that it would\nbe timed along with the other traffic lights on Webster Street. Currently, he found the\nintersection's traffic signal produced traffic back up and now wondered if the signal is on\ndemand. Overall, he was concerned that the public did not get what was promised and requested\na review of the signals as a future agenda item.\nStaff Patel, Transportation Engineer, replied that the Webster Street project was still under\nconstruction and the signal has not yet been set. The timing would occur at the end of the year,\nand staff would give the Commission an update at the beginning of this year.\nJon Spangler said he also had feedback on the light at Webster Street and Pacific Avenue. He\nwas glad to see the light at the intersection. Furthermore, he does not mind seeing the traffic at\nWebster Street slow down a little bit. However, he wanted the City to de-emphasize auto\nconvenience in favor of pedestrian crossing and bicycle safety.\n8.\nAdjournment\n10:46 pm\nPage 19 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf"}